Scott Korrow:  

Non-Co-Operative Game Theory & Governing Dynamics (To force movement) The John Nash Equilibrium: “A state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced”. ~ John Nash was the winner of the Noble Peace Prize for developing a governing dynamic theory. His game theory has been incorporated into every area of government over the last few decades which would include; trade, education, medical, prisoner interrogation and homeowner’s associations to name a very few. It’s now through-out the world and is taught in one form or another in colleges and universities across the country and around the globe. A movie was made of John Nash staring Russell Crowe titled, A Beautiful Mind. It can be a little complicated for many people to understand in its entirety, so it is best narrowed down to the following fundamentals: • A non-cooperative game is a game in which players are unable to make enforceable contracts outside of the rules/description of such a game. (The players cannot change the rules). • No player can gain additional pay-off or any further favorable outcome by changing or deviating from his/her initial strategy. Criticisms of Non-Cooperative Game Theory: • The game theories assume knowledge is freely available. • The chances that a pay-off matrix (A method of exchanging goods and services for money) can be constructed is an unrealistic assumption. • It is more of ‘knowing what happens’ rather than entering the market/game with ‘no knowledge’. • Assumes that the players are knowledgeable and reasonable. So, we have an invisible mathematical system incorporated into virtually every aspect of our lives in which rules are made and we are expected to play by them. The rules create a system that cause all the players that are all working for themselves, to come to a pre-determined conclusion based on their own choices. A good example is the prisoner's dilemma. Two prisoners apprehended for robbing a store would be interrogated separately and given several options depending on whether or not they are willing to co-operate. Their options could be different length jail sentences and leniency. The rules of the game would be constructed to cause any reasonable person to choose to co-operate. Even when someone is innocent, they can be convinced to plead guilty and accept a lesser sentence which would protect the integrity of the game. If we look at all the different media outlets such as TV stations, radio shows, magazines, newspapers, property managers, politicians and even churches, etc. etc. It becomes clear that none of them can have a favorable outcome by changing or deviating from his/her initial strategy. So, there is division between the different groups. The game suggests fairness, but since knowledge is not shared freely, the advantage always goes to the one making the rules. And the players are rarely knowledgeable and reasonable if they are focused on making decisions for their own profit or advantage, in fact,...Expand for more